Why don't you do an internet search and ask what historians, archaeologists and philosophers have used the Bible as a factual base of history. See for yourself.

Because internet searches yield too many results. A search of Historical Jesus in google gives me over 26 million hits. I ask you nicely. Can you please help me find a site where historians and archaeoligists claim historical jesus has existed and that he rose from the dead and gives proof to their claims. Perhaps you know something I (we) don't.[1]

I've given you a 30 day ban for your obnoxious behavior. Please look at what you've said here in our forum and understand that if you acted that way in person, you'd probably get a couple teeth knocked out. So, on August 8th, if you come back, I expect to see a more courteous, more genial holybuckes. If you come back the same old holybuckets, then the ban becomes permanent.

Fran (one of the the original debaters in this thread) always referred to "historical facts". We got into it several times. You have to understand the distinction he meant. When he said it was an historical fact that Jesus was resurrected, he meant that it's a fact that there are historical documents in which people wrote about Jesus being resurrected.

Quote

What is history? What is a historical fact?

...

New Testament scholars sometimes ask how we can explain “the fact of the empty tomb“. But the empty tomb is not a fact. What is a fact is that there are narratives in Gospels about an empty tomb. A more meaningful question would be to ask how we might explain someone writing a narrative about an empty tomb.

It doesn't mean that it's a fact like the Earth orbits the Sun. He used these historical facts (such as people wrote about it) to try to get people to explain any other possible outcome other than Jesus was really actually resurrected. Make sure you understand what these theists mean when they say it's an historical fact that Jesus was resurrected.

Fran (one of the the original debaters in this thread) always referred to "historical facts". We got into it several times. You have to understand the distinction he meant. When he said it was an historical fact that Jesus was resurrected, he meant that it's a fact that there are historical documents in which people wrote about Jesus being resurrected.

Huh... I never knew that. That's just bizarre. Using that basis, you could also say that it was a "historical fact" that Odysseus lived on a deserted isle with Circe.

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Huh... I never knew that. That's just bizarre. Using that basis, you could also say that it was a "historical fact" that Odysseus lived on a deserted isle with Circe.

He used the historical facts to support what he called a reasonable deduction that Jesus actually rose from the dead. I didn't want to jump in to start debating it all again myself, because there is nothing more I can say (or want to say) that I haven't already said in the previous 60-odd pages. I just wanted to make sure people understood the distinction between historical facts and actual facts.

There are many who witnessed the Resurrection, and three who documented it. It is found in Corinthians, I realize none of you care, so I will not bother giving you the verse. However, Corinthians is an indisputable document, to historians

Your definition of historian is what I'd like to dispute.

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

There are many who witnessed the Resurrection, and three who documented it. It is found in Corinthians, I realize none of you care,

Don't tell me what I do or don't care about. You realize that the attitude you're exhibiting here is in disobedience of Scripture, don't you?

Quote

but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence;

--1 Peter 3:15

The passage you're referring to is this:

Quote

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.

--1 Corinthians 15:3-8, NASB

A few things to note about this passage:

1) We do not have the testimony of these 500 people to the resurrection. We have a claim by Paul that there are 500 people who saw it. If I told you, "I saw the Goddess Isis along with 500 other people last September at the Temple of Luxor," you are not compelled to say, "Whelp, there were 500 eyewitnesses to the Goddess Isis, so She must exist." All you've got is my word. In this passage in Corinthians, all we've got is Paul's word and, as Screwtape has pointed out, good reason to doubt his credibility. We do not have any mention of these 500 people even in other relevant Christian writings, such as the Gospels or Acts or other Epistles, even when those other documents are trying to argue for the resurrection.

2) Notice how Paul includes his own experience of Christ in this list, using the same Greek word for "appeared" as the others. Now, all Christian sources agree that Paul never met any historical Jesus from Nazareth. His experience, as reported in the Book of Acts, was a mystical vision that other people with him could not see. It was not the sort of tangible appearance that could have been caught on camera. Since Paul is including his own experience as being in the same category as the others, their experiences may also have been mystical visions of the same type.

3) Even if the existence of these 500 alleged experiencers of Christ was indisputable (it's not--it's just an unsubstantiated claim by Paul), this does not prove the resurrection really happened. In modern times we have comparable phenomena in accounts of alien abduction and apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary (Lourdes, Fatima, etc.). If you're a Protestant, you probably doubt or disbelieve the validity of the latter, not to mention the former. Whatever arguments you might make against "eyewitness" accounts of UFO's, Sasquatch sightings, alien abductions, apparitions of the BVM, etc. apply with equal force against Paul's 500 "eyewitnesses."

4) Notice how Paul repeatedly uses the formula "according to the Scriptures" when he refers to Christ dying, being buried, and raised on the third day. These events come to him not as factual accounts of events in the environs of Jerusalem, but as Scriptural revelations.

Quote

and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised.

--1 Corinthians 15:14-15

So Paul is saying that if we doubt the resurrection, we are not doubting historical facts on Earth or eyewitness testimony of people, we are "testifying against God." In other words, Paul's resurrection is an esoteric revelation by God, of events found in Scripture--in Paul's day, what we now call the "Old Testament," rather than a claim about "historical fact." The resurrection is a "testimony of God" "according to the Scriptures," experienced by Paul and others in the form of mystic visions of a risen Christ.

So, we are far from anything approaching ironclad proof of the resurrection of a dead human body.

Postscript:

Would you, or the next Christian who wanders in here wanting to argue for Jesus' resurrection be willing to join me in a formal debate on the subject? I think that, given the importance of this topic to both sides, it would be good to have a more concise and focused (a few pages in length) version of this debate. I would like to debate a Christian who can actually do a good job of representing the Christian side, i.e., someone who is conversant with the best Christian arguments in favor of the resurrection of Jesus. Bonus points if you have at least a basic familiarity with mainstream New Testament scholarship (that is, scholarship outside the bubble of Protestant fundamentalist apologetics).

It is extremely doubtful that a man named Jesus even existed never mind rose from the dead.Christian academics will concede that there is no independent evidence of his existence.I attended several Ecclessiology History lectures & the Christian lecturer pointed out that there is no historical evidence of Jesus existence outside the gospels.The only historical evidence that exists is that there were Christians (Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, Josephus etc) but no evidence of Jesus.He doesn’t appear in any census (nor do his parents), no trial record & no execution record exists.Nothing exists except an ancient oral tradition & anonymously written, historically & geographically inaccurate gospels that contradict each other.

The resurrection myth can possibly be explained by the story of Yeshai Beth Halachmee.Don’t know if this story has been mentioned previously on this thread, but apparently the story of Yeshai predates the gospels & he is mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Alexandrian Scrolls & 2 other ancient texts.

Briefly Yeshai’s mother was Mary. She was married to Joseph but it was known that Joseph wasn’t his real father.His real father was an Essene. Yeshai was raised as an Essene (these were the most devout & smallest of the Jewish sects) & he was most probably a Nazorean (a further sub-sect of the Essenes). Nazorean does not mean he was from Nazareth.To gain favour with the occupying Romans the Essenes decided to have a fake crucifixion to display their devotion to their god as the Roman’s appreciated that sort of thing & the Essenes reckoned the Romans would treat them less harshly & they would get Roman converts.Yeshai agreed that he would be crucified.He very publicly & willingly went up on a cross & the Romans saw this pseudo-crucifixion.During the night his fellow Essenes came & took him down from the cross.After recuperating from his wounds he was seen by other Jews who thought he had risen from the dead.Initially the Essenes promoted the idea that he was resurrected but then realised he would be in mortal danger if the Romans saw him & realised there had been an attempt to dupe them.Yeshai was sent to India with his female companion, Mary Magdalene, for his own safety.Whilst in India he occasionally came into contact with travellers from Judea who came back with stories of seeing a resurrected Yeshai in the India.This may be the basis of the Jesus in India legends.

I don’t know if this is where the misunderstanding concerning Jesus’ resurrection came from as I wasn’t there.I don’t know if the story of Yeshai Beth Halachmee (which sounds a bit like Bethlehem) is true, but even if it isn’t true I believe there is evidence that the story pre-dates the gospels.

So you can ask yourselves which is more likely:

An all powerful creator god sent his only son to be crucified which was witnessed by a handful of people.

Or a very small Jewish sect decided to put their devotion on display by faking a crucifixion of one of their devotees to be treated less harshly & hopefully get more followers.

The resurrection myth can possibly be explained by the story of Yeshai Beth Halachmee.Don’t know if this story has been mentioned previously on this thread, but apparently the story of Yeshai predates the gospels & he is mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Alexandrian Scrolls & 2 other ancient texts.

I've never heard this so I am skeptical, but it sounds interesting. Do you have some links or can you suggest some book or articles I could read to find out more?

He doesn’t appear in any census (nor do his parents), no trial record & no execution record exists.Nothing exists except an ancient oral tradition & anonymously written, historically & geographically inaccurate gospels that contradict each other.

snip

If Jesus did exist, he would find himself in the position of one of those characters on Twilight Zone, or like George Bailey, where all evidence of his existence had disappeared. You know how it goes, the guy's wife sceams and doesn't recognize him, he talks to his mother and she has never heard of him...

You would think that this simple info would pretty much have finished off Christianity a long time ago. But the same could be said of every other religion, hence, the existence of every other religion.

I've spent far too much time studying this stuff than it warrants, but I'm living in a rural community where you are vilified by 'respectable' society for not adhering to this superstition.

Most people haven't even heard of the Essenes. I wouldn't have known about them only for my Ecclessiology History lectures.Also the bible leads us to believe that the Pharisees were the Jewish religious leaders.

The Pharisees were actually a sect. They were more numerous than the other Jewish sects of the time, the Sadducees, the Zealots & the least numerous but by some distance the most devout, the Essenes. Many scholars doubt they even existed, but they are mentioned by Josephus & it is most probable that the Essenes wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls.If you do some research on the Essenes you will see that the lifestyle promoted by Jesus is that of an Essene.Christians will tell you that Jesus was a Pharisee, but his purported lifestyle & teachings mirrors that of an Essene.The mythology of Christianity is partly based on a real person. That real person is almost certainly an Essene & the most likely candidate is an Essene that took part in a pseudo-crucifixion.

I've studied in much detail the history of christianity, how it developed & how it became the official superstition of the Roman empire.Any reasonable person that became aware of the history & evolution of christianity would have no doubt that it is all regurgitated, pseudo-sun worship.

A good example is the Catholic sacrament of penance.Most people don't even know when & why that was invented & if Catholics knew the truth of it the 'Confessional seal' wouldn't be so revered.

Constantine after winning the decisive battle at Milvian Bridge to become emperor killed the 2 sons of his defeated enemy. That was considered an outrage by Roman society at the time as you were supposed to protect the sons of your defeated enemies at the time.Constantine sought absolution for his crimes & he was told that what he had done was so grave that he couldn't get into any heaven.The only superstition that offered him any solace was christianity. They had the get-out clause of baptism. If you were baptised all your sins were absolved & you could get into heaven as long as you lived a pious existence after baptism.Constantine was very appreciative & reigned huge benefits on the christian church.Also equipped with this 'Get-out-of-hell' card he killed his son & his wife.He also killed 30 members of his household. It didn't matter he was getting out of hell.

On his deathbed Constantine was baptised as a christian & as he murdered no-one in the minutes between baptism & his death we have to assume he went to heaven.

Many Roman polytheists followed his example & were baptised on their deathbeds.

This was problematic for the early church leaders as they wanted converts & more importantly their financial contributions well before they were confined to their deathbeds.They needed a way to absolve sins after baptism & the convenience of the sacrament of penance was invented & implemented.

Tiberius Julius Caesar Augustus; 16 November 42 BC – 16 March 37 AD, was Roman Emperor from 14 AD to 37 AD. Tiberius was by birth a Claudian, son of Tiberius Claudius Nero and Livia Drusilla. His mother divorced Nero and married Augustus in 39 BC, making him a step-son of Octavian.

Tiberius was never a Phoenician soldier.

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

An all powerful creator god sent his only son to be crucified which was witnessed by a handful of people.

Or a very small Jewish sect decided to put their devotion on display by faking a crucifixion of one of their devotees to be treated less harshly & hopefully get more followers.

Well, we're certainly not limited to those two choices...

A historical Jesus connected to the Essenes is a plausible theory which has been promoted by some scholars, but it's just one of many "historical Jesus" theories and like all of the others, it's lacking any sort of solid and clear-cut evidence.

And the particular scenario you laid out seems to be oddly detailed and entirely speculative.

If it comes from the "R.W. Bernard" you mentioned, the following does not inspire confidence in his theories:

^ Ok, here's a list of works by the same R.W. Bernard. He was a Theosophist, which explains his unusual views of Jesus being a teacher in India and Christianity ultimately arising from Buddhism. The Theosophists claimed to find the origins of Christianity in ancient lost scriptures they discovered in Tibet and India. For example:

Quote

APOLLONIUS THE NAZARENE (MYSTERY MAN OF THE BIBLE)

A Startling Historical Discovery Based on Ancient Records Rescued from the Alexandrian Library Prior to Its Having Been Set on Fire by the Roman Churchmen, Concerning the Unknown World Teacher of the First Century, Leader and Teacher of the Essenes, Who First Introduced Among them the Gospel of Chrishna, Hindu Savior of 3000 B.C., which he Translated from the Sanskrit into the Aramaic as the Original Gospel (Diegesis) which, three centuries later, was elaborated into the four Christian Gospels by Roman Churchmen at the Council of Nicea, held in the year 325 A. D.

Bernard was also interested in theories of Atlantis, flying saucers, and was most known for his "Hollow Earth" beliefs. He reportedly died in South America while looking for the secret tunnels into the Earth's interior.

The only evidence that can be used to validate Jesus' resurrection is from the Bible, a collection of manuscripts that were written over forty years after the alleged Jesus character existed...

Any and all "supernatural" claims coming from the Bible could merely be the artistic license of its writers.

*More plausible/explanatory alternative established*

*Occam's razor activated*

*Game Over*

Well, maybe, but there is more evidence than the bible. the NT was written from maybe 70CE - 100CE and describes the lives and beliefs of people at that time, There must have been something from the time of Jesus, Jesus himself perhaps, that inspired the religion the gospel writers describe. Stories about a person can easily grown with the telling but for people to base their life on a person who never lived seems implausible. Any ideas we have need to account for the fact that the Christians existed at that time the gospels were written and continued to exist up to the present day.

If you conclude that Jesus did not exist, how do you account for people writing gospels about him and Paul writing letters talking about his teaching?

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

If you conclude that Jesus did not exist, how do you account for people writing gospels about him and Paul writing letters talking about his teaching?

Really? Is this so hard to understand?If you conclude that Harry Potter did not exist, how do you account for people writing gospels about him and J. K. Rowling writing letters talking about his teaching (sic)?

Logged

The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?We choose our own gods.

If you conclude that Jesus did not exist, how do you account for people writing gospels about him and Paul writing letters talking about his teaching?

There are Hindu writings about their gods. Jewish writing about their specific version of your god. Writings all over the world about other gods.

Apparently people write. That would pretty much explain everything.

Yes but why, did they write about a man called Jesus. And why did an alleged historian, Josephus, who's works were published in the same era, bother to write about someone that didn't exist when his Empire sponsored work made so open a claim as to the integrity of His record. But more importantly why did Rome allow the story to persist. Now , while you have wishful thinking, I have a theory. Take it or leave it :-)

If you conclude that Jesus did not exist, how do you account for people writing gospels about him and Paul writing letters talking about his teaching?

There are Hindu writings about their gods. Jewish writing about their specific version of your god. Writings all over the world about other gods.

Apparently people write. That would pretty much explain everything.

Yes but why, did they write about a man called Jesus. And why did an alleged historian, Josephus, who's works were published in the same era, bother to write about someone that didn't exist when his Empire sponsored work made so open a claim as to the integrity of His record. But more importantly why did Rome allow the story to persist. Now , while you have wishful thinking, I have a theory. Take it or leave it :-)

Josephus was not an alleged historian, he was an actual one. He wrote and wrote and wrote about the history of the jews, and made it extraordinarily clear that the earth was just under 3,000 years old when Moses showed up. As per Genesis. And he mentioned JC being hung out to dry, in writings that many scholars, including religious ones, think is fake. Many feel that it was added later by people copying/transcribing his works. I understand that that position is debatable and not proven either way. But I don't care, because there was no son of god stapled to a cross anyway.

By the way, scholars also disagree about whether the mention of James was also added later, but people who shouldn't have been doing things like that.

On the bright side, he didn't tell any wolf stories.

He talks of Jesus and he talks of a 3,000 year old universe. Why am I not impressed (I am impressed with his scholarship in general. He did tell the story of the Jews, among other things. But the story he told was the one he was taught.)

And if JC was so important, why didn't the guy write a bit more about him?

Why didn't the Romans stop him? Lets see. He'd been a Jew. He got caught and enslaved. Then he seemed to become a good guy in the eyes of the Romans, his master let him go, and later they let him publish an official version of the Jewish War, given that he was a Jewish traitor and a known historian and on their side by then. They liked seeing their names in etched in stone, I guess.

But how could history be distorted? Gee. Let me think. Well, what about Paul Revere? You know the story. A wolf ate him. Oops, you keep making me confused. No, he was a big hero riding around the countryside yelling "The British are coming?" Well, in fact he was only one of three men who rode that night. He didn't get very far. He got caught. Only one of them actually rode far enough to spread the word, and that guy wasn't named Revere. The trouble was, it was hard to fit the name Samuel Prescott into the poem Longfellow wanted to write ("Listen my friends, you lazy old sots, while I tell you the story of Samuel Prescott." Doesn't have the same ring.). So Longfellow took liberties with the truth. Which got transferred into textbooks by people who assumed it to be true. And now little kids are only taught about Paul Revere, and not Samuel Prescott or William Dawes.

Longfellow wrote a poem, and the history of the United States, as taught in public schools, was changed by the misinformation and literary license he used. Even though he never claimed it to be absolutely accurate. What are the chances that such things could be have been avoided in an earlier culture?

By the way, running around yelling "The British are coming" wouldn't have made any sense to the colonists at the time, given that everyone in the country considered themselves British. The term "Americans" hadn't come into use yet. But hey, at least Longfellow didn't try to work Jesus into the story, so he was more accurate than Josephus.

You are of course entitled to your own opinion. But that doesn't mean the rest of us have to go along with it. Some of us feed our wise wolves instead.

If you conclude that Jesus did not exist, how do you account for people writing gospels about him and Paul writing letters talking about his teaching?

There are Hindu writings about their gods. Jewish writing about their specific version of your god. Writings all over the world about other gods.

Apparently people write. That would pretty much explain everything.

Yes but why, did they write about a man called Jesus. And why did an alleged historian, Josephus, who's works were published in the same era, bother to write about someone that didn't exist when his Empire sponsored work made so open a claim as to the integrity of His record. But more importantly why did Rome allow the story to persist. Now , while you have wishful thinking, I have a theory. Take it or leave it :-)

Josephus was not an alleged historian, he was an actual one. He wrote and wrote and wrote about the history of the jews, and made it extraordinarily clear that the earth was just under 3,000 years old when Moses showed up. As per Genesis. And he mentioned JC being hung out to dry, in writings that many scholars, including religious ones, think is fake. Many feel that it was added later by people copying/transcribing his works. I understand that that position is debatable and not proven either way. But I don't care, because there was no son of god stapled to a cross anyway.

Rubbish, you obviously haven'y considered the likelihood of all his deeds. Don't believe everything you read without at least testing whether its credible. You need to have a look a Emperor Nerva's story and my 5 corruptions theory. Of course, take it or leave it. I'm really not into Royal command performances, despite you imagining else-wise. Many scholars, have many theories. But none may have one that connects a bigger picture.

Quote

By the way, scholars also disagree about whether the mention of James was also added later, but people who shouldn't have been doing things like that.

Well, there's James (d44AD) and then there's James the Just (d62AD or 69AD depending on who's telling the story) and there is also a another James. The last guy was associated with a very interesting dude named Theudas and a bloke called Simon. They all met there maker around 44-46AD. I wonder if that simon was also called peter?

Quote

On the bright side, he didn't tell any wolf stories.

Perhaps they were just porkies :-)

Quote

He talks of Jesus and he talks of a 3,000 year old universe. Why am I not impressed (I am impressed with his scholarship in general. He did tell the story of the Jews, among other things. But the story he told was the one he was taught.)

Now let's assume that Josephus (or maybe it was Agrippa II and his 62 letters to Nerva instead of Josephus) was a Pharisee sympathiser and he got to live in return for his letters. Perhaps a Pharisaic version of "the truth" about Go(o)d was that the universe was only 3000 years old. You should also consider, why the letter to Apion was conceived by "Josephus" when it comes to Genesis. This gives us a clue that others in the day questioned the 3000 year spin.

Quote

And if JC was so important, why didn't the guy write a bit more about him?

Well let's see. We are talking about post 70AD. The Jewish peoples have been all but wiped out. All "the christian" bishops have been murdered. The essenes are wiped out. Seems a go(o)d time to re-write your own version of events I would have thought. And If you've read the Gospel of Thomas, particularly the 53 sayings that aren't in the Bible, and you were a Roman emperor, it's not a story you would want let loose. I mean, it doesn't reflect well on Empires that align with Gods. Now, my theory suggests that the Pharisees new this and that's why they bumped of Jesus. given the harsh reaction of Rome in and around 66-73AD. I suspect they also new more to this story than meets the eye. An authentic Jesus story had to be swept under the carpet or all the benefits gained by magic and Prophecies or Roman Gods would be at risk.

Quote

Why didn't the Romans stop him? Lets see. He'd been a Jew. He got caught and enslaved. Then he seemed to become a good guy in the eyes of the Romans, his master let him go, and later they let him publish an official version of the Jewish War, given that he was a Jewish traitor and a known historian and on their side by then. They liked seeing their names in etched in stone, I guess.

Don't forget he was also the only survivor of a 40 person game of Russian roulette. I don't think so. How many lives does a cat have. Some how I think alleged fits better for propaganda stories.

Quote

But how could history be distorted? Gee. Let me think. Well, what about Paul Revere? You know the story. A wolf ate him. Oops, you keep making me confused. No, he was a big hero riding around the countryside yelling "The British are coming?" Well, in fact he was only one of three men who rode that night. He didn't get very far. He got caught. Only one of them actually rode far enough to spread the word, and that guy wasn't named Revere. The trouble was, it was hard to fit the name Samuel Prescott into the poem Longfellow wanted to write ("Listen my friends, you lazy old sots, while I tell you the story of Samuel Prescott." Doesn't have the same ring.). So Longfellow took liberties with the truth. Which got transferred into textbooks by people who assumed it to be true. And now little kids are only taught about Paul Revere, and not Samuel Prescott or William Dawes.

Longfellow wrote a poem, and the history of the United States, as taught in public schools, was changed by the misinformation and literary license he used. Even though he never claimed it to be absolutely accurate. What are the chances that such things could be have been avoided in an earlier culture?

By the way, running around yelling "The British are coming" wouldn't have made any sense to the colonists at the time, given that everyone in the country considered themselves British. The term "Americans" hadn't come into use yet. But hey, at least Longfellow didn't try to work Jesus into the story, so he was more accurate than Josephus.

You are of course entitled to your own opinion. But that doesn't mean the rest of us have to go along with it. Some of us feed our wise wolves instead.

I think it's generally agreed upon by historians who specialize in this, that all Josephus had to say was: "There are/were these people who worship a Christ". That's it. Even Paul never met a physical Jesus. And you think it a good idea to organize your life around said sketchy character? I guess some people are leaders, and some people are followers.

Rubbish, you obviously haven'y considered the likelihood of all his deeds. Don't believe everything you read without at least testing whether its credible. You need to have a look a Emperor Nerva's story and my 5 corruptions theory.

I think it's generally agreed upon by historians who specialize in this, that all Josephus had to say was: "There are/were these people who worship a Christ". That's it. Even Paul never met a physical Jesus. And you think it a good idea to organize your life around said sketchy character? I guess some people are leaders, and some people are followers.

Correct, Paul was a Pharisee and potentially related to Herod Agrippa. He was just out there pushing the OT line . First orally, that's a Pharisee tradition. Then Post 51AD Rome must have insisted on getting it in writing. If you bothered to read the letters they do not speak about any Jesus miracles. They were an invention by Rome and Nerva.

Is that right guys.... guys .... hey guys don't leave me on my own. I'm not a leader, I'm a follower.

And what do we make of this lone individual suffering all this torment from these nasty dudes. Gotta be a follower for sure.

You guys should share your material and proof read it, perhaps. And don't start with the typos. I really don't care :-)

P.S> you really should make the effort to read Josephus for yourself and consider what he allegedly did. Scholars or not. I don't think its a likely story at all.

Show some courage in your convictions, let's talk specifics not how go(o)d the gang is in shooting fish in a barrel. You know, hang round doing that stuff and licking your ears is what I call egoic. But then again talk amongst yourselves I'm sure you'll see it otherwise. :-)

PP, as far as I can tell, and this has a history of over 1 year, you don't seem to be going anywhere. It's not an attachment thingee is it? Let's try something. And as it was my idea first, you can be first. Take two weeks off, and then come back and tell me honestly that you didn't suffer withdrawal systems :-)